Quote:
Originally Posted by bgalbrecht
...I'm curious whether there are any lawyers or law professors who have any experience with anti-trust prosecutions who have commented on the case, and if so, are they siding with the DOJ or with Apple.
|
Yes.
Several have been linked in the various threads here.
They are all in accord that the Judge is almost certainly *not* going to be overturned, that the ruling she wrote up is a textbook example of how to write up an appeal-proof ruling, and that the evidence in the case was so solid and the violation so blatant the case will never show up in a legal school exam because it would be too easy.
Here's a couple:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...book-case.html
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2...racy-case.html
And, just in case, here's the ruling yet again:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...ooksruling.pdf
Quote:
"It's pretty likely in my mind that Apple will appeal to the Second Circuit,” observed Christopher Sagers, a law professor at Cleveland State University who has followed the case closely. “I think it's extremely unlikely, however, that the Second Circuit would do anything except resoundingly affirm in all respects. Apple’s only meaningful hope would be to convince the court that there was a mistake of law in finding the agreement per se illegal, but I put the odds of success on that point at [virtually zero]."
As for the judge’s "fact rulings," they will be “essentially unassailable on appeal,” Sagers says. “In any case it’s very difficult to appeal factual judgments, but in this case it will be exceedingly hard because you’ve got a 160-page opinion that is extraordinarily, meticulously detailed as to the findings of fact.”
|
Quote:
|
This whole fact pattern would never make a good exam question in an antitrust course in law school. It's way too easy. There's an arsenal of smoking guns. It's like no one at Apple ever heard of the Sherman Act.
|